Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

Why Risk a Mormon Priest in the White House?

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags  (less...) Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

- Advertisement -

Gov. Mitt Romney is clearly a Mormon leader of great conviction. He says he would rather not be President than to yield on any of his religion's teachings or practices. I applaud his honesty and integrity and wish him well as he exits the Presidential race. Because that is precisely what he should but will not do.

In assessing his candidacy and today's speech in Texas before a hand-picked audience (he learns well from the Bushies), I feel I should be clear up front about my qualifications and my possible prejudices. I am a liberal Democrat. I am a leader in the interfaith movement. I am an active spiritual teacher propounding a path that is outside the American mainstream religious faith tradition while encompassing all of it. I believe that there is but one God, to whose presence or connection are many paths.

I am also a former Elder in the Mormon Church in Salt Lake City, excommunicated from that faith tradition at my request after a serious clash of principles with the church and its practices. My ex-wife and I were "sealed" in a secret ceremony at the Temple in Salt Lake City. I have studied deeply the Mormon faith, its historical roots, its claims of divinity, and found it wanting for my personal path. But I do not denigrate either the religion or its adherents. I find much to admire in the Mormon approach to caring for its own and its strong emphasis on family.

Against that background, let me explain why I believe that nobody of the Mormon faith should expect to receive the endorsement of the majority of Americans to hold national office.

Unless you've lived in Utah, you have no idea how pervasive the Mormon influence is on politics and government. Perhaps it cannot be more clearly stated than by the outgoing Democratic mayor of Salt Lake City, Rocky Anderson: "It's the only organization, I think, that seems to automatically get its way among most elected officials." That word "automatically" is important. If the President of the Church (most adherents use the shorthand "the Church" to mean their church in a way that is arrogantly presumptuous) issues an edict on some issue or another, members are not permitted to question, debate or disobey it. Period. He is, after all, revered by his followers as "prophet, seer and revelator."

For many decades, the Mormons believed that African-Americans could not hold the power of the priesthood (the basic leadership unit of the church). Why did they hold this bizarre view? Because their prophets through those years told them God had so dictated.

- Advertisement -

Suddenly, from the church's own Web site: "In June 1978, President Spencer W. Kimball received a revelation extending priesthood ordination to all worthy males of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Official Declaration 2). Before that time only worthy male members who were not of black African descent were ordained to the priesthood." Note carefully the wording here: Kimball "received a revelation". God changed his mind and told Kimball to reverse decades of illegal and unfounded discrimination.

If any Mormon leader had, prior to 1978, attempted to ordain a black to the priesthood, he'd have been thrown out of the church. Don't doubt that. But what is implied by that policy is the same mentality that kept America a slave-holding nation for the first 70+ years of its existence: the notion that African-Americans are somehow less than the rest of us.

There is nothing at all preventing the current prophet of the Mormons, whoever he may be at any point (oh, yes, the "he" is guaranteed; the priesthood is not open to women, at least not until another new 'revelation' happens), from claiming to receive a "revelation" that affects American policy. In such a case, if the President of the United States were a Mormon in good standing, he'd be faced with resigning the Presidency (and throwing the nation into a crisis of a different sort) or violating his religious beliefs and opposing the prophet's divine disclosure.

All of this is worrisome enough, but when you consider that the principal rites of the Mormons are performed behind closed doors in secret in a temple to which nobody who is not a Mormon in good standing is admitted, worry gets amplified by secrecy. (By the way, those who participate in the Temple rites are sworn to secrecy, agreeing to allow themselves to be subjected to horrific penalties for violating that oath. 

- Advertisement -

 

http://www.danshafer.com/onemind

Dan Shafer is a long-time technology writer, political commentator and sports fanatic who has been on the Web since before it was called that and who has one of the longest-running blogs. A long-time liberal activist, Dan has recently begun turning (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Why Risk a Mormon Priest in the White House?

We Need a Leader, Not a Manager

Check Out This Book for Depth on Email Scandals in BushWorld

Newt and "American Solutions": Great Data, Horrible Conclusions

DNC Needs to Stand Up to Corpstream Media on Debates

Electability: Excuse for Not Thinking

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
11 people are discussing this page, with 32 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

I do not support a Romney candidacy, but I feel ev... by ardee D. on Friday, Dec 7, 2007 at 6:56:46 AM
I agree. As much as I find Romney scary, I believe... by Amy Fried, Ph.D. on Friday, Dec 7, 2007 at 9:26:02 AM
I'm sorry that you felt that my article convey... by Dan Shafer on Friday, Dec 7, 2007 at 11:30:58 AM
I am puzzled, frankly. I thought your point was ra... by ardee D. on Friday, Dec 7, 2007 at 4:03:13 PM
Yes, you disagreed with my conclusion but you didn... by Dan Shafer on Friday, Dec 7, 2007 at 11:07:54 PM
My original post is four above this one. Please cu... by ardee D. on Saturday, Dec 8, 2007 at 6:43:48 AM
I don't know if you choose to ignore what I sa... by Dan Shafer on Saturday, Dec 8, 2007 at 8:54:57 PM
I imagine you nurture some event in the past that ... by ardee D. on Sunday, Dec 9, 2007 at 10:17:08 AM
...to anyone in the battling of intolerance and in... by Dan Shafer on Monday, Dec 10, 2007 at 2:50:12 PM
When I first began to read your article I thought,... by Mike Folkerth on Friday, Dec 7, 2007 at 6:58:14 AM
Thanks for your kind words. I am of course well aw... by Dan Shafer on Friday, Dec 7, 2007 at 11:32:38 AM
as you so often write, "I do not want to put words... by Mike Folkerth on Friday, Dec 7, 2007 at 9:30:13 AM
especially when they border on the sophomoric. Thi... by ardee D. on Friday, Dec 7, 2007 at 4:06:32 PM
I took your concluding sentence, "Where does ... by Dan Shafer on Friday, Dec 7, 2007 at 11:10:18 PM
Exclusionary politics is , in fact, a form of hatr... by ardee D. on Saturday, Dec 8, 2007 at 6:49:57 AM
from organized religion, please. As a transplant t... by Daniel Geery on Friday, Dec 7, 2007 at 10:48:21 AM
Wow. Assuming that you really mean what you say an... by Dan Shafer on Friday, Dec 7, 2007 at 11:22:23 PM
Dan Shafer, in my opinion, left out a critical pie... by William Cormier on Friday, Dec 7, 2007 at 10:54:04 AM
of a possible point of interest to many. Both the ... by Daniel Geery on Friday, Dec 7, 2007 at 11:08:21 AM
I, too, have heard such reports of penetration of ... by Dan Shafer on Friday, Dec 7, 2007 at 11:26:03 PM
at the prejudices of this supposedly progressive p... by ardee D. on Friday, Dec 7, 2007 at 4:36:24 PM
No matter how carefully I read and re-read my arti... by Dan Shafer on Friday, Dec 7, 2007 at 11:37:07 PM
Ardee said, "But I refuse to descend into the... by Mike Folkerth on Friday, Dec 7, 2007 at 4:43:29 PM
and shame on you for it. I think that the facts of... by ardee D. on Saturday, Dec 8, 2007 at 6:59:21 AM
but he made (I am told) a pretty effective governo... by Jim Freeman on Friday, Dec 7, 2007 at 6:14:57 PM
I too was Mormon for several years in New York hav... by Dom Jermano on Friday, Dec 7, 2007 at 10:57:20 PM
ROBERT HALFHILL   The question is not wh... by rhalfhill on Saturday, Dec 8, 2007 at 1:50:13 AM
I am apparently not being clear in this discussion... by Dan Shafer on Saturday, Dec 8, 2007 at 9:05:14 PM
Constitution's provision that "There shal... by chessmaster on Saturday, Dec 8, 2007 at 10:52:56 AM
The question as you posed it is/was an illegitimat... by Andris on Sunday, Dec 9, 2007 at 2:10:15 AM
I did not make my claim without any substantiated ... by Dan Shafer on Monday, Dec 10, 2007 at 2:56:36 PM
Examiner who are you talking too? I was unable to ... by Dom Jermano on Sunday, Dec 9, 2007 at 9:35:08 AM